K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3807 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3807.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3807; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 53; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 100; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2001 · leading case: State v. Davis, 26 P.3d 681 (Kan. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Davis, 26 P.3d 681 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 11× “4(b) and K.S.A. 21-3807 was that the State had violated the rule and the statute in presenting Thomas’ testimony because the State secured the testimony by promising not to prosecute Thomas.”
Edwards v. State, 25 P.3d 142 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “This contrasts with the general prohibition against compounding a crime in K.S.A. 21-3807. It also is noteworthy that K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3807(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Davis, 26 P.3d 681 (Kan. 2001). “4(b) and K.S.A. 21-3807 was that the State had violated the rule and the statute in presenting Thomas’ testimony because the State secured the testimony by promising not to prosecute Thomas.”
Edwards v. State, 25 P.3d 142 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “This contrasts with the general prohibition against compounding a crime in K.S.A. 21-3807. It also is noteworthy that K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3807(a)(l) — 1 case
Edwards v. State, 25 P.3d 142 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “This contrasts with the general prohibition against compounding a crime in K.S.A. 21-3807. It also is noteworthy that K.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.